That quote from Darwin perfectly demonstrates at least one way in which evolution could be falsified.

If you take the position that all claims of irreducible complexity are simply matters of the poverty of imagination, and as such it is not demonstrable, you open evolution up to the same criticism.


Except one has boatloads of evidence from a large variety of scientific fields, all corroborating near perfectly with each other, and the other has nothing but personal incredulity; no mechanism, no predictions, no real-world application, and most importantly no evidence. Never mind that the term "irreducible complexity" is essentially meaningless. I think evolution can live with the shame of not being a phantasm of people's imaginations.

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong.

Don't worry there, I wasn't referring to you as one, but am noting that you are using the identical argument. Almost every time I have this argument with someone pushing ID, the whole "evolution is unfalsifiable" meme inevitably comes up. It's really not too hard to think of the ways in which the details of evolution via natural selection could be falsified or to even Google them if you can't.

Also, the admission that evolution would be hard to falsify with only one piece of evidence isn't an argument against its so-called unfalsifiable character, merely that there's an immense wealth of evidence that serves as further confirmation that yes, what we humans label evolution by natural selection is/has been certainly happening and it would take pretty extraordinarily multitudinous counter-evidence to prove(?) otherwise (of course, even still, it wouldn't make any form of ID automatically true). The information is readily available to anyone with a genuine inclination to look for it.

I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what your position is, if you don't mind shortly clarifying again in a couple of sentences. Thanks.

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong. I specifically said, filling gaps in knowledge with divine intervention is obviously not valid. My point is simply that many who claim ID is unfalsifiable also claim irreducible complexity as impossible to demonstrate, thus they might open evolution up to the same criticism. I don't really care what side I argue for, I'm just interested in hearing a higher level of debate. Frankly, I didn't want to talk about logical fallacies, I wanted to talk about biochemical processes, like opsin barrels, and energy barriers. That shit is dope.

Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details. In fact, almost every rule I was ever taught at an elementary level about any sort of obviously falsifiable detail of evolution has turned out to be false in some weird or possibly limited case (e.g. epigenetics smells awfully Lamarckian). Still, we don't say "Darwin was wrong." You can't falsify evolution in the broad sense the same way you can't falsify gravity. At this point it's common sense more than science. It's more like a world view we use to form specific falsifiable theories than a theory itself. It's a world view that has been shown to be extraordinarily enlightening for sure. So much so, that at this point even with that Hippo fossil, I don't think people would change their minds.

That's fine. I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology). I feel that there would more constructive arguments resulting from a healthy skepticism about it. I understand that there is a sociopolitical undertone to the whole debate, and I respect that. I just happen to think that those with the better arguments will win (natural selection). So often I see bullshit jive being put forth as reasoned debate, which I think is what happens when ideas gain too much popular acceptance. Thus, I'd like to see an elevated level of debate about the topic. Since you aren't going to get QM to form a coherent paragraph, I might as well be the uke.

>> ^rottenseed:

"marshall is bird stamps" wtf? that's INCREDIBLE!!!

They got you pegged.

>> ^peggedbea:

it actually DID, in fact.
pegging was an inside joke between me and my bf at the time when i signed up.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Dan-Savage-on-the-Colbert-Report#comment-1108878'>^Fantomas</a>:<br />
Well @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/peggedbea" title="member since August 24th, 2008" class="profilelink">peggedbea</a> we all know where your name came from now.<br></em>


ROFL! Outstanding!

it actually DID, in fact.
pegging was an inside joke between me and my bf at the time when i signed up.

>> ^Fantomas:

Well @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/peggedbea" title="member since August 24th, 2008" class="profilelink">peggedbea we all know where your name came from now.

@sheppard.
was gonna write the litany of experiences i have encountered with bad,brutal and authoritarian police but peg beat me to it and to do so now would just be self serving.
that being said i will whole heartedly agree that most cops are decent and professional but there are two things of note i would like to share.
1.city cops and country cops=huge difference.most city cops i have encountered are pretty even handed.they have seen it all and minor infractions just make them laugh while a county sheriff likes to push his weight around and demands respect in the form of bullying (not all mind you but enough).
2.there seems to be differing outcomes on the type of cop based on the reasons to become one in the first place.the cop who chose to become one due to a desire to serve,protect and perform a much needed service tends to be more pragmatic and proffessional than the cop who decided he wanted a job which carried authority and the ability to dominate under the guise of "law".
one produces an exceptional police officer the other produces the people you see in videos such as these.

my conclusions are based on anecdote and observation and really have no scientific methodology other than my own experience but if you ask people if they have experienced "bad cops acting badly" you may get a novel rather than a blurb.
i have to admit a certain gladness that your family is among the "good cop" variety and that you defend them at every occasion because "good cops" should be defended but lets also be clear.
bad cops need to go and the best defense against the bad cop should start with their fellow officers NOT with youtube videos.

Hm - when did Fox News fire Olbermann? That's the only way her stupid rant makes any sense. I don't care if news bozos donate to campaigns. I think making that information public is a good idea, but the concept in and of itself is not offensive to me. I'd rather hear the news from a person whose bias I knew than listen to a guy pretending to be "neutral" who hides their biases.

So what if Olbemann donates to Democrats. Wow - WHAT A SURPRISE! Knock me over with a feather. He's a leftist. Gee - I woulda never pegged him for it... Uh - on second thought - no - I could tell that he was a biased dingus the second he started flapping his lips. And you know what? I prefer it that way. There's no questions. I know who he is and where he's coming from. I completely disagree with his pespective - but I know what it is. That's a good thing.

Anyone pretending (like MadCow) that it is some sort of 'secret' that Fox opinion guys go right is an idiot. What?! Hannity donates to (gasp) Republicans? Why... Why I never heard of such a thing...! Please. There's no secret there. And Hannity is not an anchor, so who cares who he donates to anyway? Olbermann is a commentator. He's entitled to donate to whoever he wants, and more power to him. MSNBC behaved stupidly - just like NPR did with Juan Williams. This whole affair does nothing but highlight MSNBC management's incompetence.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Okay. I know last year I took you for more a religiously indoctrinated theist.
Tho since you posted this I think I have you pegged more as one of my 311 lovin', new age spiritualist, hippie peers.
I know you guys all really want consciousness to be a fundamental unit of time and space..
..but it's not. There's no need.
Consciousness is simply the result of the electrical impulses that shoot from one cell to another.
No matter, no cells, no consciousness.
I think you guys just reeeeally want to think that your existence is more meaningful.
And that's alright but it's a waste of time & brain power.
You'll never know one way or the other.. so why waste so much thought on the assumption?


so because i posted a deepak chopra video it MUST mean this is my philosophy?
i posted a video about conjuring annubus..does that mean i practice solomonic magik also?
your logic is flawed genji.
i do not have to agree with deepak chopra to find his conflations interesting or see poetry in a persons desire to understand things that may be out of their reach.
the answers may change over time but i will always find the question FAR more interesting.it appears by your comment that we should not even ask the question,though you do not judge this either good nor bad...just futile..because we cannot know.
i disagree violently with that train of thought because if we dont ASK the question,the process to reaching an answer never starts and we risk stagnation.
we need to ask the questions...any question... and strive to answer that question.

what IS consciousness?
you say "Consciousness is simply the result of the electrical impulses that shoot from one cell to another."
now i disagree with that statement simply for its incompleteness but allow me to point out that your quote is not an answer but rather a statement pertaining to bio-mechanics but does not answer the question of consciousness.

as for me being a religiously indoctrinated theist...
uh...no.
i am vehemently anti-religion and while i have many reasons for this one of my main problems with organized religion is the stagnation of humanity,mentally as well as spiritually.
religion limits.
it confines and constrains the human spirit to a tiny ball of doctrine.
while religion does give some people a sense of peace and comfort,it is not the religious people that i am speaking of but rather the hiearchal doctrine makers of the church elite who perpetuate doctrine to keep people fearful and submissive in order to keep themselves relevant.
i teach cultural religious history NOT to perpetuate this system but rather to give a broader context using historical text that chips away at the doctrine put forth by the church as the UN-erring word of god.
i challenge the fundamentalist mentality that traps the imagination and stagnates the mind.
i seek to free my fellow man from the confines of religion.

i am a man of faith yet i am part of a community which is mostly atheist.
ever wonder why?
i dont preach..
i never attempt to convert..well..anyone.
you will never see me chastise a person for lacking faith or having faith in something i disagree with.
so why would i frequent a site populated by atheists?
statistics have shown that people tend to congregate with like-minded people..so what the fuck am i doing here?

one last thing before i go and this becomes a blog and no longer a comment.
a piece of advice in your future evaluation of people.
your first impression of me was that of me being a religious person and then it changed to me being a hippie new-ager,both were wrong.
the reason is presuming the intentions based solely (and simply) on a persons posts and random comments.
this is very....human,,but it also conflates perfectly to our discussion:consciousness.
now how could you possibly have a picture of me based on such little information?
quite simple..you based your deduction on your own prejudices and biases.
how did you get these biases? living,experiencing and learning.
but those biases had little..or nothing..to do with me.
so while presumption and assumption are integrally human and something we do naturally,it behooves us to refrain from following the first base impression and instead delve deeper.you WILL be surprised at what people will reveal to you (not always but often enough).

i hope this comment is received with the respect that was intended.
always a pleasure genji.
and thanks for the vote even though you disagreed with the content..very cool of you my friend.

Okay. I know last year I took you for more a religiously indoctrinated theist.

Tho since you posted this I think I have you pegged more as one of my 311 lovin', new age spiritualist, hippie peers.

I know you guys all really want consciousness to be a fundamental unit of time and space..

..but it's not. There's no need.

Consciousness is simply the result of the electrical impulses that shoot from one cell to another.

No matter, no cells, no consciousness.

I think you guys just reeeeally want to think that your existence is more meaningful.

And that's alright but it's a waste of time & brain power.

You'll never know one way or the other.. so why waste so much thought on the assumption?

I hope I pegged the time zone.

Happy Birthday to you. Many more.

Good luck in all you do.

Yeah, thanks. That was pegged as quote of the week in the school paper.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
"Marijuana has more myths surrounding it than a quarter-pound of Mexican schwag has seeds"

hahaha nice...

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/hale-legalizing-marijuana-would-benefit-nebraska-1.2383284

@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

http://videosift.com/video/Jake-The-Peg-Third-Leg-Lucky

>> ^Payback:

Ohhhh... I'm Jake the Peg, deedle eedle eedle um, with my extra leg, deedle eedle eedle um.

>> ^arghness:

>> ^Grimm:
I don't remember seeing this guy until I was much older. The guy that I remember had a German accent I believe and used to use big house painting brushes. Every time at one point it looked like he had messed the painting up but it always came out looking great in the end.

Okay, I may sound stupid here, but are you referring to Rolf Harris? He's Australian but often painted with large brushes and had the catchphrase "Can you tell what it is yet?".
I don't have a great example video to show, but if it was him, this might ring a bell.


Ohhhh... I'm Jake the Peg, deedle eedle eedle um, with my extra leg, deedle eedle eedle um.

peg beat me to it.
emotive pounding music...
fast trickeration shots..
hyperbolic language.
seems this video is just promoting a different slave master.
who cares what the politics of your owners are..
they are still your owners and you are still a slave.
to place the blame on democrats is not only disingenuous but ignores the statistical facts:
the poor have always been ignored and only trotted out for political campaigns with only a few exceptions.